The military intervention of the United States in Venezuela once again reminds us of an old international custom: wars are not declared for interests, but they always end up benefiting the same people. This time, moreover, with unusual sincerity.
The bombings and invasion of Venezuelan territory constitute a clear violation of international law, as they lack authorization from the UN Security Council and do not respond to a prior aggression that would activate legitimate defense. In other words, there is no legal coverage, only force.
Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter is explicit: states must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any stateHowever, Donald Trump himself has declared his intention to "control Venezuelan oil companies." With that statement, the debate is simplified: it is not about freedom, but about oil
It is not a historical novelty. It already happened in Iraq, where democracy was promised and a devastated country was left behind. Also in Libya, which became a failed state, and in Afghanistan, after twenty years of occupation and a withdrawal that left more poverty and fragility.
The pattern repeats: a threat is invoked, bombing occurs in the name of universal values, strategic interests are secured, and the territory is abandoned when the damage is irreversible
Today it's Venezuela. Tomorrow it could be Colombia, Mexico, or Brazil. Because when armed intervention without legal limits becomes normalized, no country is safe if it possesses strategic resources or decides not to align itself.
All of this violates the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, recognized by the UN General Assembly. Controlling resources after an invasion is not diplomacy: it is plunder.
Condemning this aggression does not imply defending any government, but rather defending international law and peace.
No to war.
No to invasions.
Yes to the sovereignty of peoples.
